Voting contagion: Modeling and analysis of a century of US presidential elections

被引:54
作者
Braha, Dan [1 ,2 ]
de Aguiar, Marcus A. M. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] New England Complex Syst Inst, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
[2] Univ Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA 02747 USA
[3] Univ Estadual Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
来源
PLOS ONE | 2017年 / 12卷 / 05期
关键词
STOCHASTIC RESONANCE; OPINION DYNAMICS; MASS-MEDIA; BEHAVIOR; DECISION; STATISTICS; DIVERSITY; REGIONS; HEALTH; SPREAD;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0177970
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Social influence plays an important role in human behavior and decisions. Sources of influence can be divided as external, which are independent of social context, or as originating from peers, such as family and friends. An important question is how to disentangle the social contagion by peers from external influences. While a variety of experimental and observational studies provided insight into this problem, identifying the extent of contagion based on large-scale observational data with an unknown network structure remains largely unexplored. By bridging the gap between the large-scale complex systems perspective of collective human dynamics and the detailed approach of social sciences, we present a parsimonious model of social influence, and apply it to a central topic in political science-elections and voting behavior. We provide an analytical expression of the county vote-share distribution, which is in excellent agreement with almost a century of observed U.S. presidential election data. Analyzing the social influence topography over this period reveals an abrupt phase transition from low to high levels of social contagion, and robust differences among regions. These results suggest that social contagion effects are becoming more instrumental in shaping large-scale collective political behavior, with implications on democratic electoral processes and policies.
引用
收藏
页数:30
相关论文
共 104 条
[81]   Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? [J].
Mobilia, M .
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 2003, 91 (02)
[82]  
MORAN PAP, 1950, BIOMETRIKA, V37, P17, DOI 10.2307/2332142
[83]  
MORAN PAP, 1950, BIOMETRIKA, V37, P178, DOI 10.1093/biomet/37.1-2.178
[84]   Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments [J].
Nickerson, David W. .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2008, 102 (01) :49-57
[85]   FROM PRIVATE ATTITUDE TO PUBLIC-OPINION - A DYNAMIC THEORY OF SOCIAL IMPACT [J].
NOWAK, A ;
SZAMREJ, J ;
LATANE, B .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1990, 97 (03) :362-376
[86]   LOCAL SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION STATISTICS - DISTRIBUTIONAL ISSUES AND AN APPLICATION [J].
ORD, JK ;
GETIS, A .
GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS, 1995, 27 (04) :286-306
[87]   Stochastic Dynamics of the Multi-State Voter Model Over a Network Based on Interacting Cliques and Zealot Candidates [J].
Palombi, Filippo ;
Toti, Simona .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 156 (02) :336-367
[88]   Place matters: Consensual features and regional variation in American well-being and self [J].
Plaut, VC ;
Markus, HR ;
Lachman, ME .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 83 (01) :160-184
[89]   Divided We Stand: Three Psychological Regions of the United States and Their Political, Economic, Social, and Health Correlates [J].
Rentfrow, Peter J. ;
Gosling, Samuel D. ;
Jokela, Markus ;
Stillwell, David J. ;
Kosinski, Michal ;
Potter, Jeff .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 105 (06) :996-1012
[90]  
Rubin R., 1981, Press, Party, and Presidency